The jokes were pretty grim and unfunny, but is the guy just not supposed to work now because of something he said back when Don't Ask Don't Tell was law and the progressive Democrat President was against gay marriage?

I know I'm walking right into a trap by replying to this post, but...

Kevin Hart can make all the movies and do all the stand-up comedy he wants. He's one of the few stars in Hollywood who can still be counted on to guarantee box office results. He can go on making a mint off the people who like his comedy. But should he be hosting what is commonly referred to as "the gay Superbowl?" Probably—no—definitely not. It doesn't matter a bit if his comments were made at a time of (slightly) more official governmental discrimination. They were just as hateful and violent then as they would be if he made them yesterday. He didn't disavow or apologize for them until they cost him a high-profile gig, which means he's not sorry for what he said, he's just sorry he lost a job because of it. And fuck Jimmy Kimmel, too, while we're at it.

As for some of the recent posters in this thread, I would congratulate you on being such fine, fine people who are above petty identity politics and calling people out on their bullshit, but you're already doing a bang-up job of it yourselves.

Given the wide variety of responses I'm seeing from LGBTQ individuals online I don't think there was as "right" an answer was. The President of GLAAD openly stated that he didn't think Hart should have stepped down and could have used the moment for unity. The jokes were wrong and they will always BE wrong but Hollywood doesn't seem to be interested in the possibility that not everyone flew out of the womb woke as hell and that they might have in fact had some shitty views in their past and that they have evolved past them. The issue raised is that Hart could not have possibly said anything to dissuade people angry with him and that what the crow really wanted was a scalp. I do not think it is intellectually dishonest to acknowledge the awfulness of those tweets while simultaneously realizing that peoples views can evolve over time.

Being socially conscious is something that evolves over time and is not an end state that has no further progression.

Everyone - either in their past or in their present - has said/done something stupid. You just accept that these stupid things happen and learn from your mistakes. The issue with Kevin Hart was not so much that he said homophobic things (I have heard/been called a lot worse - also I'm gay and Mexican, so I get the double whammy of hearing both casual racism and casual homophobia). The issue was Hart's constant and consistent refusal to own up to this behavior and admit that it was bad, or even apologize for it.

Hart deleted the tweets because he wanted to be done with the matter, but the Instagram video he posted was a non-apology (he spoke of love and positivity, and said his critics were just living in negativity). On Thursday, he posted that he would not be apologizing, even though (he alleges) the Academy gave him an ultimatum to apologize or they would find a new host. Then a few hours later, Hart apologized, which was a complete 180 from his previous stance.

Regardless of his intentions, Hart came off looking so bad in this situation because he put so much effort into making everyone else the enemy (critics, the Academy), rather than just saying "I made mistakes in my past. I am learning from my behavior. I apologize."

I could care less if he hosts or doesn't host because I am watching the ceremony to see who ultimately wins the award. But this drama surrounding Hart could have subsided if Hart just acknowledged his behavior, apologized for it, and moved on. An apology wouldn't completely quell the backlash (in the age of social media, backlashes will occur regardless, and people will find a reason to hate someone), but it would have given Hart an ability to actually show that he is growing and learning from his mistakes.

Regardless of his intentions, Hart came off looking so bad in this situation because he put so much effort into making everyone else the enemy (critics, the Academy), rather than just saying "I made mistakes in my past. I am learning from my behavior. I apologize."

That’s not exactly what he said, that’s what he said after not apologizing in the first place. He also suggested that others who found fault with what he said were looking for reasons to be angry because they weren’t as happy as him...

In the end, some really stupid jokes that one would expect to hear on a kid’s playground were his undoing. This is no real loss, the Oscar world isn’t losing out on a major talent.

Last edited by bearcuborg on Fri Dec 07, 2018 10:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.

FWIW, I'm gay and I feel that if he really wanted to evolve and be a more tolerant person he'd have apologised for the jokes in 2015, and not only after the backlash to his Oscars appointment. I get the sense he is only sorry about getting a public dressing down. His apology feels like damage limitation and little else to me. I've been at the receiving end of homophobic abuse which the likes of Kevin Hart helped to normalise with their "comedy" and if someone professes to wanting to evolve, then for me to find them credible I expect them to do it a lot sooner than after getting publicly called out for their shit. I'm not able to read Hart's mind (for which, frankly, I'm grateful!) but his reaction doesn't suggest to me a man who's got enough empathy and understanding to evolve.

If the Academy needs a presenter, get Maya Rudolph and Tiffany Haddish and cut the whole thing down to two hours tops.

Yeah, a man whose first response to justified criticism is basically "don't kill my vibe, haters" does not strike me as someone who believes he has anything to apologize for. I might've given him the benefit of the doubt if he led with the actual apology, but I don't buy it at all coming after such a stubborn refusal to admit that he did wrong.

I'm absolutely surprised they haven't made Ellen the next Carson or Crystal, she seems to be just the kind of fit for what everyone wants in a host now (not to mention as funny).

Mixed feelings on Kimmel. Yeah his pleas for sanity and some of his tributes to people who affected him like Letterman showed a human side, but anyone who Bill O'Reilly called "a friend of the show" is eternally suspect.

Other people are pushing for Hannah Gadsby, which seems like a strange suggestion. Are people hoping that the ceremony will turn into a political lecture?

Don't get me wrong: I have no time for the self-congratulation and general backslapping (to put it politely) of Hollywood awards ceremonies, and she couldn't actually be worse than mediocrities like Kimmel. But unless she's going to opt for a lighter touch and refrain from using the gig as a soapbox to editorialise, it seems like a fundamental misreading of the purpose of these events, which is basically to provide hours of dumb, complacent entertainment. I'm not sure that pious self-flagellation is a great improvement on that. Bring back Ricky Gervais, please!

The Academy likes politics sure but not that kind. When Gervais mocked Hollywood at his Golden Globes gig I recall folks being mighty upset and for good reason, he had the audacity to talk about how a lot of it is crap. Independent of how right someone like Gadsby might be about certain things even the most woke people (I say that in reference to what they believe about themselves.) in Hollywood aren't going to want to be second guessed. The Academy wants an entertainer not someone whose going to critique them (Although I would certainly find that amusing.) for three hours. She's more than qualified but I doubt she fits into what Execs want for the job. I'd be shocked if they went with her.

I bring up Dwayne Johnson again not because I particularly like him but because I think he's a safer, more marketable bet. The Academy doesn't want to be second guessed. It wants to feel proud of itself within a safe environment and get viewers to go along with it. In short, safe sugarcoated bull that everyone feels safe with is better than a controversial, possibly hostile broadcast.

Surely the safest choice is Ellen, and to be honest, I wouldn't mind seeing her take up the position as the reliable go-to that Billy Crystal has held for far too long (I really hope he's not dragged back out to recycle his nearly 30-year-old jokes again).

Other people are pushing for Hannah Gadsby, which seems like a strange suggestion.

And one that is a complete waste of time. Netflix special or not, I doubt many people in Hollywood know who this woman is, even I had to look the name up (and I've seen at least one TV series she's acted in). Apparently, the only thing she's done outside of Oz/NZ is some stand-up festivals and a program on Radio 4. She's probably qualified to host the AACTA/AFI Awards in Australia, but hardly the Oscars. Hell, I'd pick Trevor Noah before her, and I stopped watching The Daily Show when Jon Stewart called it quits.

If only ABC hadn't fired Roseanne, she could have hosted (you may laugh, but consider that without "Ambien tweeting", this could have been our reality).

Speaking of comedians, though, John Oliver might be a good choice, if he's willing. He seems fairly neutral about Hollywood, and his HBO show is excellent (and on hiatus until 2019), although he may have made a few enemies with that Dustin Hoffman incident.

Otherwise, the absolute best choice for me, especially in light of the situation, would have to be RuPaul. I mean, at least the show would be utterly fabulous and probably not boring in the least, which is really all you want the host to do with the show--make it not boring.

Gadsby's hiring would officially make me stop watching the Oscars. Even if they have a snarky way of doing so, an Oscar host should have some sort of reverence for the occasion, and Gadsby is a scold who has no substantive connection to the entertainment industry

Yes, although it's obviously a pretty convenient way to thrust her further into the public eye. She was in the news last week for giving a speech on why good men are also bad people by association who should be quiet and listen to Hannah Gadsby. Sounds like a fun Oscar night!

I know after the James Franco/Anne Hathaway fiasco the Academy producers probably have no intention of hiring non-comedians to host again. But I might be one of the few who really enjoyed Hugh Jackman's hosting and felt he wasn't given enough to do. I'd love to see a talented actor/singer and non-comedian take the hosting duties and do some musical numbers that are NOT smug and snarky (*cough* Seth MacFarlane *cough*). I guess Neil Patrick Harris sort of came close, but he's kind of been playing his Harold and Kumar/How I Met Your Mother character in all of his hosting gigs. I know everyone wants to see the Oscars turn into a celebrity roast a la Ricky Gervais's Golden Globes, but it might be a breath of fresh air to find someone who's just charming.